Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1Assistant
Abstract
XTRACT (Chadwell and Imbsen, 2002) started as an academic and research tool at the
University of California at Berkeley as a program titled UCFyber. At its infancy,
UCFyber was the first interactive Microsoft Windows based program that performed
moment curvature analysis for reinforce concrete cross sections. The program had the
capability of performing realistic analysis of cross sections incorporating the effects of
increased strength and ductility of confined concrete as well as nonlinear steel behavior
within a graphical environment. While XTRACT has become an invaluable instrument
for concrete research within earthquake engineering, it has also evolved to become a
production tool for analysis and design of concrete systems within design offices
around the World. XTRACT is an important tool for earthquake engineering analysis
when a realistic assessment of moment and curvature capacities of a cross section is
required.
XTRACT has been used on many high profile projects for both buildings and bridges
ranging from analysis of the existing columns for the Salt Lake City, City Hall seismic
upgrade project to analysis of the suspension bridge columns on the new Caquenez
Straits bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, XTRACT is currently being
used in the design of the temporary bypass structure for the new San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge as well as in numerous state transportation agencies across the country.
This paper discusses some of the basic analytical features within XTRACT and introduces some innovative uses of the program for seismic assessment of reinforced concrete columns. During seismic excitation of concrete moment resisting frames axial
forces vary due to overturning demands. This, in turn, affects the ultimate curvature
capacity and consequentially, the seismic displacement capacity of the concrete columns. By generating a plot of axial force verses ultimate curvature, curvature demands
can be checked directly for a concrete column within a seismic force resisting frame.
This paper outlines the methodology behind the creation of this type of diagram and
includes example diagrams for both unconfined and confined rectangular concrete
cross sections.
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
i ( x i, y i ) = a y x i + x y i
Geometric Centroid
Fi
i
Mx =
yi Fi
i
My =
xi Fi
i
Because the total axial force found from summing the individual forces within each
fiber is not necessarily equal to the applied axial load on the cross section, an iteration
between the applied axial load and resisting axial load (P) is done by changing the strain
at the centroid. Once the applied axial force and resisting axial force matches to within
a defined tolerance, the curvature is incremented and the process is repeated.
Termination of the incrementing curvatures occurs when a desired limit state is reached
within the material. The ultimate limit state is defined for reinforced concrete cross sections as the curvature at which either fracture of the longitudinal reinforcement or
crushing of the confined concrete occurs as defined by the respective material models.
Force Control. In force control, the forces (or moments) are incremented until a material limit state is reached. In force control, there is iteration within each analysis step
using the tangent cross section stiffness in conjunction with a Newton-Raphson type
iteration. XTRACT provides two options for force control, iteration at a minimum
unbalanced displacement normal and iteration at a constant arc length (Clarke and Hancock, 1990). In a force control solution strategy, the inverse problem is solved. With
this type of solution, problems with convergence can occur when there are severe discontinuities defined within the material models.
Once the series of moment curvature coordinate pairs have been calculated for a target
axial load, using either displacement or force control, a plot of these points is referred
to as a moment curvature diagram. Each moment curvature analysis is performed for a
target axial force. The results reveal the ultimate curvature that corresponds to the specific axial force as the last point in the analysis. A series of moment curvature analyses
is typically performed to consider a range of axial force-ultimate curvature pairs.
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lated. The axial force associated with the particular strain diagram along with the corresponding moment becomes the axial force-moment coordinate pair where a limiting
strain has been reached. Figure 3 depicts a schematic of varying centroidal strains with
=0
Varying Imposed Strain
Profiles each Resulting in
Corresponding Moments
and Curvature
Centroid
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
analyses to construct this diagram. Furthermore, it is of interest to note that because the
strain diagram is being varied, the solution strategy is essentially displacement controlled without iteration.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Example
To demonstrate, two rectangular sections are created with the same cross section and
longitudinal reinforcement layout. The sections are 76.2cm (30in) by 76.2cm (30in)
with 12 - 25mm longitudinal reinforcing bars of A615 Grade 60 steel. One of the cross
sections is transversely reinforced with 13mm reinforcing bars at 10.2cm (4in) on
center (Figure 4). The other section has no transverse reinforcement.
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Two analyses are performed: one with material yield strains set as target strains and the
other with ultimate strains set as target strains.
Results. Figure 6 shows the axial force-yield curvature and the axial force-ultimate
Axial Force (kN)
20000
15000
Ultimate Surface
10000
Yield Surface
Curvature (1/m)
5000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
-5000
Figure 6. Axial Force verses Curvature Diagram for the Confined Concrete
Section.
curvature diagrams found from analysis with the confined cross section. Figure 7
Axial Force (kN)
20000
15000
10000
Ultimate Surface
Yield Surface
5000
Curvature (1/m)
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-5000
Figure 7. Axial Force verses Curvature Diagram for the Unconfined Concrete
Section.
shows results from analysis with the unconfined concrete section. For the confined
concrete cross section, the maximum curvature capacity occurs at low levels of axial
compression; for the unconfined concrete section, the maximum ultimate curvature
capacity occurs when the section is in tension. Figure 8 shows that both ultimate surfaces exhibit the same rapid drop in ultimate curvature with increasing axial load, however, with the unconfined cross section, this occurs at a lower value of axial load. This
result is not unexpected.
7
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
20000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
15000
10000
5000
Curvature (1/m)
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
-5000
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05 -500 0
-1000
-1500
Ultimate Surface
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Curvature (1/m)
-2000
-2500
Figure 9. Moment Curvature Diagrams for Various Axial Loads Plotted with
Moment and Curvature Coordinate Pairs from the Axial Force-Ultimate
Curvature Interaction Surface.
analysis results plotted with moment curvature data output from the axial force-ultimate
curvature surfaces. It is clear from Figure 9 that the axial force-ultimate curvature surface calculated with an axial force-moment interaction analysis, constructed with ultimate strains, does result in the desired failure envelope.
Structures 2004
Structures 2004
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
As earthquake engineering design is turning to a displacement based design methodology, realistic assessment of the nonlinear behavior of systems is necessary. A highly
important limit state for reinforced concrete components subject to inelastic deformation demands is the ultimate curvature. It is the ultimate curvature, in part, that determines the ultimate rotations as well as the ultimate displacement capacity. To
determine this value for different axial loads, a series of moment curvature analyses are
typically performed and the last point calculated within a moment curvature relation is
taken as the ultimate curvature corresponding that particular axial load.
Using the axial force-interaction analysis in XTRACT with target strains set to ultimate
values, an axial force-ultimate curvature diagram can be constructed. This diagram
shows the variation in axial load with corresponding curvatures but the analysis is performed without iteration. Rapid construction of this curve can be executed in XTRACT
for determination of ultimate curvature capacities; which in turn, can be compared to
curvature demands resulting from seismic excitation.
References
Chadwell, C.B., Imbsen & Associates, (2002), "XTRACT - Cross Section Analysis
Software for Structural and Earthquake Engineering". http://www.imbsen.com/
xtract.htm
Clarke and Hancock (1990), "A Study of Incremental-Iterative Strategies for Non-Linear Analysis", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol.
29, 1365-1391.
Kent, D.C., and Park, R. (1971), "Flexural Members with Confined Concrete," Proceeding ASCE, Vol. 97, No. ST7, July 1971: 1969-1990.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988), "Observed Stress-Strain Behavior
of Confined Concrete," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No.
8, Aug. 1988: 1824-1849.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sheikh, S.A., and Uzumeri, S.M. (1980), "Strength and Ductility of Confined Concrete Columns, " Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST5, May 1980: 1079-1101.
Vallenas, J.M., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P. (1979), Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, Report UCB/EERC-79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Aug. 1979.
Structures 2004
Structures 2004